future. As the years wear on mechanical skill will become more widely diffused until some day the whole world will be a workshop and, when that happens, the "carrying of coals to Newcastle" will be reduced to a minimum and then the universe will be on a really economical basis.

SECRETARY SHAW ON THE FOSS PLATFORM.

HE SAYS IT IS NOT THE KIND OF TARIFF REVISION IOWA REPUBLICANS WANT.

[Washington Correspondent of Chicago Inter-Ocean.]

find his platform popular in Iowa, though I have heard that he is telling the Boston people that Iowa has begun the campaign for tariff revision, and he is with the Hawkeye Republicans.

"Just let him go to Iowa and advocate his brand of tariff revision if he wants to know how much he differs from the Iowa Republicans. But that is one of the embarrassments of our platform. Other people misunderstand it and try to make it fit their demands for tariff reduction which are wholly unlike our Iowa demands. Why will these New England people misunderstand us? But I suppose Mr. Foss thinks he is as good a Republican as any of our Iowa brethren."

Wilson was invited to the conference of Republican leaders reported to have been held in Des Moines the other day. Neither of these Iowa members of the Cabinet have heard anything more about this alleged conference than what they have read in the newspapers. Both admit that the Republicans of Iowa favor some sort of revision of the tariff, but of course they want the reductions made on products which are not produced in Iowa.

Mr. Foss of Boston, a brother of Congressman Foss of Chicago, is also making a campaign for tariff revision. Mr. Foss is a manufacturer and he is making a campaign for Congress on the platform of free wool, free hides and free meat. Mr. Foss is a Republican and claims that he is standing on a good Republican platform.

Secretary Shaw's attention was called to the platform of Mr. Foss and he was asked if that was the kind of tariff revision the Republicans of Iowa want.

"Why, no," said the secretary. "We have always called that free trade because there would be no protection to the farmer. That is an entirely different brand of tariff revision from what we have in Iowa. We don't want free wool, free hides, nor free cattle, because we produce all these and demand that they be protected. Mr. Foss would not

[American Economist.]

The National Reciprocity League is an organized protest against the declaration of the National Association of Manufacturers that no reciprocity plan be adopted that shall inflict injury upon any interest of industry, commerce or farming. Twice this sound doctrine has been affirmed by the National Association-first in the National Convention at Washington last November, and second, by the National Convention in Indianapolis last April. The Reciprocity League takes exactly the opposite ground. Practically it urges tariff reductions through reciprocity treaties, regardless of the injury inflicted upon any industry as the result of such reductions.

T

HE American Review of Reviews in its September issue has some observations on the tariff question, which possess the characteristic feature of "tariff reform" utterances in general, wherein they have little foundation in fact or reason.

The editor repeats the statement, which we have seen in that publication before, that "when the Democratic politicians had their opportunity to reform the tariff they modified it a little here and there, but left it in general what it was beforenamely, a characteristic American high protective tariff."

Let us see about this. The Wilson tariff transferred 92 articles from the dutiable to the free list and reduced duties on 737 different articles, a large number of which were strong competitors of our own products. Among the articles placed on the free list were iron ore, wool, cotton ties, binding twine, and nearly all farm products; and duties were reduced on luxuries which are consumed mainly by the rich who were well able to pay the higher duties imposed by the McKinley tariff. The Wilson tariff made more radical reductions (ranging from 25 to 75 per cent) in import duties on the whole line of competing commodities than even the low tariffs of 1846 and 1857. It is true that this tariff, as it was finally constructed, was not the drastic free trade measure intended by its authors. But for certain modifications secured by several

Then the editor goes on to say that "it is a simple fact that American industrial development has reached that condition of maturity to promote which the protective system was originally devised;" so it is hinted that the stimulus of tariff protection is no longer required. Again, "we are becoming a great exporting nation, and foreign countries are growing more uneasy and disturbed over the invasion of their markets by American goods, while this country keeps up its high barriers against foreign commodities." It is suggested, therefore, that a revision of our tariff in several schedules would not hurt the industries involved, and the inference is that such tariff modifications would placate the foreign interests by giving them a bigger piece of our rich market while, at the same time, it would help to preserve our export trade from the dangers of foreign retaliation. Then it is added that "the American wage system is no longer dependent chiefly upon the tariff, but upon the efficiency of labor in actual production."

The statements we have quoted are based upon certain fallacies which constitute the principal arguments of the free trade press for breaking down the protective system. The greatest of the misconceptions is, that when protection has built up some of the "infant industries" it has fully served its purpose. This view ignores the essential fact that it is still needed to protect vested interests; and, besides, it cannot be said that its work in building up "infant industries" is ever fully accomplished. Many ventures are yet to be made in the establishment of new industries and of independent plants in the older industries, which will justify the need of continued protection from foreign competition. It is safe to assume that if we had a tariff for revenue only such ventures would never be made. Therefore, the protective policy is to be steadfastly maintained, and is not to be discarded when some manufacturers who have prospered under it imagine that they are strong enough to dispense with it. The weaker industries must not be sacrificed to benefit the stronger.

The mutual dependence of industries is something of which the free trade theorists take no account; but tariff changes, either in the tariff itself or through reciprocity treaties, that would injure the industries of one section of the country, would also inflict some injury, more or less direct, upon the industries and commercial interests of all other sections. It is urged, however, that

there has been a great change in economic conditions in a few years which makes tariff changes imperative. But if the tariff were to be revised in the direction of lower duties, we think it would be found that, save in a few instances, the present economic conditions would be only a small protection against foreign industrial competition. And right here it may be well for free traders to bear in mind that the next time the tariff is revised (and this work will undoubtedly be intrusted to the friends and not to the enemies of protection) it may be found necessary to raise some of the duties as well as to lower some.

The suggestion that the reduction or abolition of duties in a few schedules would not hurt the industries concerned while it would help our export trade, is a double misconception. It is claimed that the United States Iron and Steel Corporation would not object to the abolition of the iron and steel duties because they have no fear of foreign competition; but the duties would still be needed for the protection of the smaller independent companies, of which a list numbering fifty is given by the Iron and Steel Bulletin and is copied elsewhere in this issue of THE PROTECTIONIST. Of course the free traders will contend that if the smaller concerns have not reached a stage of progress where they can hold their own against foreign competition they should go out of business. But to give protection to the smaller enterprises is not to offer a premium to "industrial incompetency," as one free trade writer has expressed it, but it is to encourage the competition of independent producers and so prevent the larger concerns from becoming absolute monopolies. Assuming that the United States Steel Corporation could wholly dispense with tariff protection but that its domestic rivals could not flourish without it, it is obvious that the repeal of the iron and steel duties would give the former a monopoly of iron and steel production within the country. So it is perfectly clear that the method advocated by the so-called tariff reformers would tend to create monopolies rather than to destroy them, and it would also seriously obstruct our future industrial develop

ment.

The folly of attempting to extend our export trade by reducing tariff duties was demonstrated in Wilson tariff times; and all know that the expansion of our exports has been greatest under protective tariffs and when the home market has been at its best. One reason for this seeming paradox is that under a low tariff industrial growth and domestic production become greatly restricted, and the quantity of commodities available for export is much diminished. It is only when our manufacturers have a strong hold on the home market that they are able to strengthen their hold upon foreign markets; in other words, there must be an assured home market to assure a profitable export trade. The true policy, therefore, is to take good

care of the home market, in which farmers and manufacturers sell at least 92 per cent of their products, and let foreign trade take care of itself. It would bring no real or permanent advantage to the country to buy more from abroad to enable a comparatively small number of manufacturers to sell more abroad. Larger imports would mean less work and less pay for the workmen in the far greater number of our industries, smaller sales and smaller profits for hundreds of our manufacturing industries, a large shrinkage in the demand for farm products, and a great decrease in home trade. Hence the proposition to enlarge exports of the products of certain industries by increasing imports of commodities that would injure or sacrifice other industries is pernicious and indefensible, and we much doubt if fair-minded people can be persuaded to endorse it.

It is true that the remarkable industrial progress of the United States and our increasing invasion of foreign markets have created much apprehension and resentment abroad, and for many years reprisals have been threatened. But there has never existed any substantial reason why the United States should frame its tariff laws to promote the interests of foreign industries, and the mere suggestion of such a policy seems cowardly and unpatriotic. It is certain that no foreign government will ever condescend to consult our government or people in reference to any legislation which it may deem necessary for the interests and protection of its own people. For any nation to pursue the contrary policy might well be viewed as a sure sign of national degeneracy.

As to the matter of our “labor efficiency," it is a fact that it is only in a few industries that the cost of production is less here than abroad. The recent report of Mr. Axel Sahlin, member of a commission appointed by the British Iron Trade Association to investigate industrial conditions in the United States, concludes that generally "American labor is not more efficient, though it is better paid than in England." In most cases it will be found that the lower cost of labor abroad, together with cheaper raw material in some instances, will more than offset the greater efficiency of our labor; and for this reason alone it is unsafe to reduce our tariff to an extent that will give foreign industries wider opportunities to compete in our domestic market.

pull down the business of the country with it in its fall. To demolish the tariff protection utterly would be to throw our markets wide open to the manufacturers of Europe, to pay what prices they should see fit to dictate; that is, assuming that the business depression left us with enough money to buy on any other scale than from hand to mouth.

The truth is and it is a truth that practical men will never blink at that to make a tariff that will last long enough to give any stability to business it must satisfy more than one section. It must be made by agreement between the sections if it is to stand one section must make concessions to get the support of another. The Dingley tariff was made this way, and if New England congressmen and senators gave way on some points and made concessions which have been unpopular hereabouts, it is reasonably certain that they did so only to secure other important industries from legislation that would have been eminently unfavorable to them. Similarly as a tariff must be made by agreement between sections, it must be revised. All sections must be satisfied, and preliminary to that all sections must be satisfied of the necessity of revision.

COMMON SENSE ON THE TARIFF.

[Boston Transcript.]

That proposed "easy way" of reducing or abolishing the tariff on trust-made goods would land us in the quagmire of deeper business depression than that from which we emerged five years ago. The trusts by no means make all the goods made in their line. The individual manufacturer would be the first to feel the blow. The trust, with its greater organization and capital, would have more time to protect itself, but even if it were ultimately "downed” it would

THE Republican party has chosen the proper attitude on trusts, as the Democrats will find later on when they are confronted with the necessity of stating the remedy they have to offer to check their growth. Thus far they have only offered the humbugging panacea of the free traders. The people will have none of that, for they understand that, while it might succeed in destroying the trusts, it would also make it impossible for workers to find employment. No plan like that of burning the ship to destroy the rats will be accepted by the American people. If trusts are to be suppressed the suppression must be effected without striking a blow at industry. San Francisco Chronicle.